sign in sign up
<<
Home , Mesquite, Prosopis juliflora

Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online) Vol.5, No.23, 2015

Management of juliflora through Chemicals: A Case Study in

U. K. Shanwad 1 B. M. Chittapur 2 S. N. Honnalli 3 I. Shankergoud 4 Tegegnework Gebremedhin 5 1. Scientist (Agronomy), Main Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences Raichur 584 104 Karnataka State (India) 2. Director of Research, University of Agricultural Sciences Raichur 584 104 Karnataka State (India) 3. Assistant Professor (Department of Agronomy), College of Agriculture, Bheemarayanagudi, Karnataka State (India) 4. Associate Director of Research, University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur 584 104 Karnataka State (India) 5.Department of Sciences, Debre Markos University,

Abstract is popularly known as Honey in the western world, commonly known as mesquite in India and popularly known as Bellary Jali in Karnataka. Prosopis is fast growing, salt-tolerant and drought- tolerant trees that can grow in an areas receiving as little as 50 mm of rainfall per year. This is a rhizomatous perennial weed dominating an important part of productive agricultural lands in most of the developing countries including India. It tolerates traditional methods of weed control such as soil solarisation and mechanical methods. This study was carried out to manage this weed with the available herbicides on cultivated land at the Main Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences Campus, Raichur in Karnataka State in southern India during 2009 to 2011. Several easily available herbicides were used including Mera – 71 (Glyphosate), Paraquat, 2, 4-D amine and ester, Diuron, Keroscene and Coaltar as individual chemicals with different concentrations and combination of chemicals were also tried. The study results reveal that all treatments except diuron / keroscene / coaltar conmbinations reduced growth and development of Prosopis juliflora. Mera-71, 2, 4-D ester followed by paraquat were the best in affecting weed recovery. Results also indicates that the control of regrowth of Prosopis juliflora is effectively achieved by two times applications of systemic translocated herbicides such as Mera-71 (Glyphosate) and 2,4- found better as compared to paraquat, diuron and other farmer practices. Keywords: Prosopis juliflora , Mangement, Glyphosate, 2,4-D, Paraquat, Diuron, Keroscene

Introduction Exotic plant species have been purposely and/or accidentally introduced throughout the world due to their economic, environmental or aesthetic values. Nonetheless, introduction of new species is not always a success and brings about the possibility of invasiveness of the species which in turn result in negative impacts (economic, environmental and social). Encroachment of rangelands by , reduction of crop yield, genetic erosion of biodiversity, disruption of water flow, poisoning of livestock, formation of impenetrable thickets, etc are some of the impacts of invasive species across a wide range of agro-ecologies. There are many species in the Prosopis like Prosopis juliflora, , , Prosopis alba, Prosopis pubescens and Prosopis tamarugo are all species that are native to the America, but have now become established in arid and semiarid , and . Prosopis cinerarium is native to India, while Prosopis africana is native to the Sahelian belt of Africa (Ahmed et al. , 2009). Prosopis is a fast growing, salt-tolerant and drought-tolerant tree that can grow in an areas receiving as little as 50 mm of rainfall per year. There is great controversy surrounding Prosopis juliflora , if it is unmanaged, it often colonizes, eroded and over-grazed lands, forming dense impenetrable thickets. Thickets of Prosopis juliflora have become established in grazing lands, crop lands and along river courses, alarming pastoralists, farmers and conservationists. There is a great concern on the impacts of the tree on biodiversity of native and on the amount of water in dryland streams. Prosopis species have been declared noxious weeds in many countries, including Argentina, Australia, , Pakistan and (Al-Sherif, 2007) and P. juliflora is now one of the top global invasive plant species according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). On the other hand, Prosopis juliflora has proved useful in restoring degraded and saline lands, producing a variety of useful products for the local populations. Prosopis juliflora has potential as a source of fuel , timber, honey and animal forage. Prosopis juliflora was introduced in India in the last century and was thought to be a very promising species for aforestation of dry and degraded land. However, its environmental benefits and economic potential are increasingly overshadowed by some of its undesirable properties. But it cannot be kept uncontrolled as it occupied the cultivable area if not properly controlled, thereby giving a big threat to the Indian agriculture. The experiences from other countries shows that control of Prosopis is extremely difficult and costly to eradicate once it take . Hence, it is an urgent need to find out the ways and means of controlling this menace. In this direction, a research study was conducted at the Main Agriculture Research Station,

30

Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online) Vol.5, No.23, 2015

University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur, Karnataka to know the effect of selective herbicides on Prosopis juliflora.

Material and methods Experiments were conducted during 2009 to 2011 at MARS, UAS Raichur (Figure 1) on medium to deep black cotton soils (vertisols). The different stem thickness of Prosopis juliflora plants have been selected in three different sites as per the technical programme. Four different available herbicides namely glyphosate, 2, 4-D, paraquat and diuron were sprayed with different concentration as well as smeared the cut portion of the Prosopis juliflora with the help of cotton web. Apart from this the farmer practices like spraying kerosene, hot salt water and burning the plant and applying the coaltar to the cut portion of the plant were also tried. Evaluations were conducted after nine months of first spray to allow sufficient time for herbicidal action to be completed and resprouting to occur. Within each spot 20 to 25 individual Prosopis juliflora plants were examined based on the stem girth size and grouped in to 3 stem size classes: < 1 cm = class I : 1-2 cm = class II and > 2 cm = class III. The number of basal supporting stems was counted for each plant. Stems were considered independent if branching occurred within 15 cm above ground level. Trees were grouped arbitrarily into 3 stem number categories for statistical analysis 1 to 2 stems = single stemmed; 3 to 5 stems = few-stemmed; and > 6 stems = many stemmed. After nine months of second application stem and root of Prosopis juliflora were studied to know the effect of the applied herbicides on the plant internal system. Some of the chemicals have shown effective results on xylem and phloem activities and also hinders the root system. Data were processed by analysis of variance used percent plant mortality for each stem number class by stem thickness class and plot within a treatment as a data point. Percentage data were calculated (arcsin √x) and prior to analysis interactions were evaluated for stem number class x stem thickness class, stem number class X herbicide, and stem thickness class X herbicides, stem number class X Stem thickness class X herbicide, and each combination.

Results Growth and development of Prosopis juliflora varied with different herbicides applications (Table 1 & 2). Mera- 71 (Glyphosate and 2, 4- D) were almost twice as effective as paraquat and 3 times as effective as Diuron. Combination of herbicides (Mera-71 and 2, 4- D) controls the Prosopis juliflora growth better than the individual application. Plant stem thickness (indirectly indicates age) of Prosopis juliflora also influenced by the different herbicides formulations. The higher concentrations of herbicides have more effective than the lower concentrations. Early stage plants (stem thickness size < 1 cm and 1-2 cm) are more susceptible to herbicides effect than the later stage plants (>2cm stem thickness) Prosopis juliflora susceptibility to different herbicides was strongly influenced by individual tree stem number. Resistance increased proportionally with increasing stem numbers, averaging 46 - 60, 30 - 40 and 10 - 30 % for single, few and many stemmed trees. Among the herbicides Mera-71 @ 40 gm/ltr followed by 2,4-D @10 gm/ltr found to be effective than the paraquat @ 30 ml/ltr and diuron @ 5 gm/ltr across all stem thickness sizes (Table 3). Among the methods of applications of herbicides, smearing the herbicide to cut portion of Prosopis juliflora found better than the spraying method especially in aged plants. But in early stage plants both methods found better. Similarly with in each stem thickness class by herbicides, resistance increased with increasing stem number, illustrating why interactions among herbicides, plant stem thickness and stem number were insignificant. Although efficacy for any particular herbicide fluctuated with the different tests, single stemmed trees were consistently more susceptible than either few or many stemmed plants of Prosopis juliflora . After nine months of second spray stem and root internal systems were studied to know the effect of herbicides on the Prosopis juliflora . The observations confirms that the early stage (stem thickness <1cm and 1- 2 cm) plants internal systems were collapsed (xylem and phloem cells of stem were died) due to the effect of these systemic herbicides. But the internal systems of later stage (stem thickness >2 cm) plants were partially functioning. Apart from testing only herbicides, farmers’ practices like spraying with kerosene, hot salt water followed by burning and smearing with coal tar were also tried. But the results of these treatments were not effective as that of herbicides.

Discussion Chemical treatments involve the use of herbicides to kill trees, with the most effective being stem or aerial applications of systemic herbicides. Effectiveness is dependent upon chemical uptake, which in Prosopis is limited by the thick bark, woody stems and small leaves with a protective waxy outer layer. The choice of herbicides, the correct application method, dosage, time of application and follow-up actions are very important.

31

Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online) Vol.5, No.23, 2015

The formulation and application of chemicals for trees of mixed ages and sizes within a stand is difficult. Many herbicides and herbicide mixtures have been tested, mostly on Prosopis juliflora . According to Our result, it was showed that Combination of herbicides (Mera-71 and 2, 4- D) controls the Prosopis juliflora growth and development better than the individual applications. However the management method was influenced by the thickness and number of stem per plant due to the fact that the bigger thickness and more number of stem were inspired more concentration of herbicide than the smaller ones. In the 1980s, 2, 4, 5-T was the herbicide of choice in the USA (Jacoby and Ansley, 1991) and Australia (Csurhes, 1996). Although 2, 4-D provided excellent suppression of top growth, few trees were actually killed and such chemical treatments had to be applied periodically to ensure that forage yields were maintained. Infested sites often needed spraying every 5-7 years. The most effective chemical for high tree kill in the USA is clopyralid, but dicamba, picloram and triclopyr have also been successfully used, either alone or in combination (Jacoby and Ansley, 1991). In India, ammonium sulfamate was successful in killing P. juliflora trees and as a stump treatment (Panchal and Shetty, 1977). Our research result was also coincide with Waisel (1972) and Weinert and Sakri (1977) who reported the early stage plants internal systems were collapsed (xylem and phloem cells of stem were died) due to the effect of these systemic herbicides. But the internal systems of later stage plants were partially functioning. The basal bark and cut-stump techniques used with an appropriate registered herbicide are effective on mature trees. Basal bark treatment (spraying around the entire stem up to 750 mm from the ground) should be used during the growing season (approximately October to April, depending on species and location). The cut- stump technique, where herbicide is immediately applied to a stump that has been cut horizontally very close to the ground, is effective year round. Seedlings can be controlled by spraying foliar herbicide over the entire plant. This is particularly effective for dealing with actively growing, dense stands of mesquite up to 1.5 m tall Geesing et al . (2004).

Conclusion Prosopis juliflora infests almost all kinds of land in India. Either it is agriculture, industries, roads, reservoirs, streams/nalas etc., it competes for light, soil moisture and nutrients with the neighboring plant species apart from destroying the beauty of the surrounding environment. As the mechanical methods often control only the top growth and allow the Prosopis juliflora to resprout as a multi-stemmed plant. Controlling Prosopis juliflora through chemicals at early stages is very effective than the later stages. Double application of herbicides seems to be effective than the single application irrespective of the chemicals. In this scenario controlling the Prosopis juliflora by spraying or smearing with locally available chemicals like Glyphosate and 2, 4- D ester seems to be better options than the other chemicals.

References Ahmed A, Girma Taddese, Don Peden and Yasin Gethan. 2009. Invasive plant Prosopis juliflora expansion on farm and grazing land in Ethiopia: A threat to pastoral grazing land. Al-Sherif, E. A. 2007. Effect of chemical scarification, salinity and preheating on seed germination of Prosopis farcta (Banks & Soland.) Macbr. American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture & Environmental Sciences . 2(3): 227-230. Csurhes SM, 1996. Pest Status Review Series - Land Protection Branch: Mesquite (Prosopis spp.) in Queensland. Queensland, Australia: Department of Natural Resources. Geesing D., Al-Khawlani M. & Abba M.L. 2004. Management of introduced Prosopis Juliflora species: can economic exploitation control an invasive species? Unasylva, 55:36-44. Jacoby P, Ansley RJ, 1991. Mesquite: classification, distribution, ecology and control. In: James LF, Evans JO, Ralphs MH, Child RD, eds. Noxious Range Weeds. Boulder, Colorado, USA: Westview Press. Panchal YC, Shetty P, 1977. Chemical control of Prosopis juliflora (Sw) DC. Program and Abstracts of Papers, Weed Science Conference and Workshop in India, No. 153. Waisel, Y. 1972. Biology of halophytes. Academic Press, New York. Weinert, E. and Sakri, F. A. 1977. Sulfate content in plant tissues of some Iraqi plants. Flora (Jena) . 166: 65-73.

32

Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online) Vol.5, No.23, 2015

Table 1: Effect of single application of different herbicides on Prosopis juliflora plants and their regrowth Number of Side Shoots Observed (90 Visual Observations Days after first time chemical spray) Sl. Sub Treatments Made No. (Factor-B) (90 Days after first (Factor-A) time chemical spray) < 1 cm stem 1-2 cm stem >2cm stem thickness thickness thickness 1 Mera -71 @ 20 g/ltr Plants appears dried 0.88 (0) 1.05 (1) 1.35 (1) 2 Mera -71 @ 30 g/ltr Plants completely dried 0.70 (0) 0.70 (0) 1.05 (1) 3 Mera -71 @ 40 g/ltr Plants completely dried 0.70 (0) 0.70 (0) 0.88 (0) 4 2,4- D @ 5 g/ltr Plants appears dried 0.88 (0) 1.05 (1) 2.04 (4) 5 2,4- D @ 10 g/ltr Plants appears dried 1.05 (1) 1.44 (2) 1.56 (2) 6 Paraquat @ 10 ml/ltr Plants appears dried 1.46 (2) 1.81 (1) 1.35 (1) 7 Paraquat @ 20 ml/ltr Plants partially dried 1.86 (3) 2.60 (6) 3.24 (10) 8 Paraquat @ 30 ml/ltr Plants partially dried 1.86 (3) 2.19 (4) 2.74 (7) 9 Diuron (Klass) @ 2.5 g/ltr Plants are green 2.11 (4) 3.28 (10) 3.06 (9) 10 Diuron (Klass) @ 5 g/ltr Plants are green 1.89 (3) 2.79 (7) 2.84 (8) 11 Mera-71 @ 30 g/ltr + 2,4- D 5 g/ltr Plants appears dried 0.88 (0) 1.05 (1) 1.56 (2) 12 Mera-71 @ 40 g/ltr + 2,4- D 10 g/ltr Plants completely dried 0.70 (0) 0.88 (0) 1.68 (2) 13 Mera-71 @ 20 g/ltr + paraquat 10 ml/ltr Plants completely dried 0.70 (0) 0.70 (0) 1.77 (3) 14 Mera–71 @ 30 g/ltr + paraquat 20 ml/ltr Plants completely dried 1.18 (1) 1.35 (1) 1.86 (3) 15 Mera-71 @ 40 g/ltr + paraquat 30 ml/ltr Plants completely dried 0.88 (0) 1.35 (1) 1.86 (3)

Sub Treatments (Factor-B means) Sl. No Average Main (Factor-A means) Treatment 1 1.097 (0.7) Sl. No Average Treatment 2 0.821 (0.3) Treatment 1 1.188 (1.1) Treatment 3 0.766 (0.0)

Treatment 4 1.322 (1.3) Treatment 2 1.487 (2.3) Treatment 5 1.354 (1.7)

Treatment 6 1.326 (1.3) Treatment 3 1.925 (3.7)

Treatment 7 2.563 (6.3)

Treatment 8 2.256 (4.7) Critical Difference Values Treatment 9 2.816 (7.7)

Treatment 10 2.509 (6.0) - CD 5% CV (%) Treatment 11 1.165 (1.0)

Treatment 12 1.081 (0.7) Factor A 0.116

Treatment 13 1.068 (1.0) Factor B 0.251 17.72 Treatment 14 1.454 (1.7)

Treatment 15 1.363 (1.3) Treatments/ (A X B) 0.441

33

Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online) Vol.5, No.23, 2015

Table 2: Effect of double application of different herbicides on Prosopis juliflora plants and their regrowth Number of Side Shoots Observed Visual Observations (90 Days after second time chemical Sl. Treatments Made spray) No. (Factor-B) (90 Days after second time chemical spray) < 1 cm stem 1-2 cm stem >2 cm stem thickness thickness thickness 1 Mera -71 @ 20 g/ltr Plants appears dried 0.70 (0) 0.88 (0) 1.18 (1) 2 Mera -71 @ 30 g/ltr Plants completely dried 0.70 (0) 0.70 (0) 0.70 (0) 3 Mera -71 @ 40 g/ltr Plants completely dried 0.70 (0) 0.70 (0) 0.70 (0) 4 2,4- D @ 5 g/ltr Plants appears dried 0.88 (0) 0.88 (0) 0.88 (0) 5 2,4- D @ 10 g/ltr Plants appears dried 0.70 (0) 0.88 (0) 0.70 (0) 6 Paraquat @ 10 ml/ltr Plants appears dried 1.86 (3) 2.28 (5) 2.47 (6) 7 Paraquat @ 20 ml/ltr Plants partially dried 1.46 (2) 2.19 (4) 2.47 (6) 8 Paraquat @ 30 ml/ltr Plants partially dried 0.88 (0) 1.05 (1) 1.46 (2) 9 Diuron (Klass) @ 2.5 g/ltr Plants are green 2.26 (5) 2.02 (4) 2.97 (8) 10 Diuron (Klass) @ 5 g/ltr Plants are green 1.95 (3) 1.56 (2) 2.48 (6) 11 Mera-71@ 30 g/ltr + 2,4- D 5 g/lt Plants appears dried 0.70 (0) 0.88 (0) 1.35 (1) 12 Mera-71@ 40 g/ltr + 2,4- D 10 g/ltr Plants completely dried 0.70 (0) 0.70 (0) 1.23 (1) 13 Mera-71@ 20 g/ltr + paraquat 10 ml/ltr Plants completely dried 1.05 (1) 1.35 (1) 1.35 (1) 14 Mera–71@ 30 g/ltr + paraquat 20 ml/ltr Plants completely dried 1.05 (1) 1.18 (1) 1.05 (1) 15 Mera-71 @ 40 g/ltr + paraquat 30 ml/ltr Plants completely dried 0.88 (0) 1.35 (1) 1.05 (1)

Sub Treatments (Factor-B means) Sl. No Average Main (Factor-A means)

Treatment 1 0.912 (0.3) Sl. No Average

Treatment 2 0.701 (0) Treatment 1 1.091 (1.0) Treatment 3 0.701 (0)

Treatment 4 0.931 (0.3) Treatment 2 1.204 (1.2) Treatment 5 0.876 (0)

Treatment 6 0.766 (0) Treatment 3 1.411 (2.1)

Treatment 7 2.193 (4.7)

Treatment 8 2.035 (4.0) Critical Difference Values

Treatment 9 2.419 (5.7) - CD 5% CV (%) Treatment 10 1.992 (3.7)

Treatment 11 0.977 (0.3) Factor A 0.105 Treatment 12 0.876 (0.3) 19.96 Factor B 0.236 Treatment 13 0.821 (0)

Treatment 14 1.244 (1.0) Treatments/ (A X B) 0.401 Treatment 15 1.097 (1.0)

34

Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online) Vol.5, No.23, 2015

Table 3: Effect of different herbicides on Prosopis juliflora plants and influence of stem number Resistance to herbicide (in percentage) Sl. Stem no. class (90 Days after second time chemical spray) Herbicide (Factor C) No. (Factor A) Stem thickness class (Factor B) < 1cm thickness 1-2 cm thickness > 2 cm thickness 1 Single stemmed Mera-71 @ 40 g /ltr 14.72 (8) 18.32 (10) 23.32 (16) 2,4-D @ 10 g /ltr 22.73 (15) 30.94 (27) 32.80 (31) Paraquat @ 30 ml/ltr 47.91 (55) 51.10 (60) 66.55 (83) Diuron @ 5g/ltr 68.62 (84) 75.38 (92) 85.16 (100) 2 Few stemmed Mera-71 @ 40 g/ltr 18.20 (10) 20.73 (13) 26.90 (21) 2,4-D @ 10 g/ltr 26.76 (20) 29.27 (24) 42.86 (46) Paraquat @ 30 ml/ltr 55.01 (65) 55.42 (67) 73.04 (90) Diuron @ 5g/ltr 63.93 (82) 65.45 (82) 86.87 (100) 3 Many stemmed Mera-71 @ 40 g/ltr 15.87 (8) 19.28 (11) 30.14 (25) 2,4-D @ 10 g/ltr 29.70 (25) 27.78 (22) 48.08 (55) Paraquat @ 30 ml/ltr 56.77 (70) 50.51 (59) 73.65 (92) Diuron @ 5g/ltr 69.14 (85) 71.56 (88) 85.16 (100)

A x B Means A x C Means B x C Means Sl. No Average Sl. No Average Sl. No Average AB 1 38.49 AC 1 16.26 BC 1 18.78 AB 2 41.52 AC 2 26.40 BC 2 28.82 AB 3 42.87 AC 3 52.90 BC 3 55.18 AB 4 43.93 AC 4 67.23 BC 4 72.57 AB 5 42.71 AC 5 19.44 BC 5 21.94 AB 6 42.28 AC 6 29.32 BC 6 32.96 AB 7 49.75 AC 7 52.34 BC 7 60.84 AB 8 54.29 AC 8 70.79 BC 8 69.16 AB 9 56.27 AC 9 26.79 BC 9 21.77 AC 10 41.24 BC 10 32.39 AC 11 71.08 BC 11 60.30 AC 12 75.34 BC 12 72.06

Main Main Main (Factor-A means) (Factor-B means) (Factor-C means)

Sl. No Average Sl. No Average Sl. No Average A1 40.92 B1 43.96 C1 20.80

A2 42.95 B2 46.23 C2 32.39 A3 53.43 B3 47.10 C3 58.62

C4 71.25

35

Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online) Vol.5, No.23, 2015

A x B x C Means S.No Average Critical Difference Values ABC 1 14.71 ABC 2 22.73 ABC 3 47.90 - CD 5% CV (%) ABC 4 68.62 ABC 5 18.19 ABC 6 26.75 ABC 7 54.05 Factor - A 3.63 ABC 8 63.92 ABC 9 15.87 ABC 10 29.70 ABC 11 56.76 Factor - B 3.63 ABC 12 69.14 ABC 13 18.31 ABC 14 30.94

ABC 15 51.09 Factor - C 4.20 ABC 16 75.38 ABC 17 20.72 ABC 18 29.26 ABC 19 55.42 A x B 6.30 13.92 ABC 20 65.44 ABC 21 19.28

ABC 22 27.78 A x C 7.27 ABC 23 50.50 ABC 24 71.56 ABC 25 23.32 ABC 26 32.80 B x C 7.27 ABC 27 66.54 ABC 28 85.16 ABC 29 26.90 ABC 30 42.86 A x B x C 11.57 ABC 31 73.04 ABC 32 86.86 ABC 33 30.14

ABC 34 48.07 ABC 35 73.65

ABC 36 85.16

36

Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online) Vol.5, No.23, 2015

Figure 1: Location map of the study area Main Agricultural Research Station, UAS, Raichur, Karnataka State

Plate 1. Before chemical spray Plate 2. 90 Days after chemical spray (Mera – 71 @ 40 g/ltr )

37

Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online) Vol.5, No.23, 2015

Plate 3. Before Chemical Spray Plate 4. 90 Days after chemical spray (Mera – 71 @ 40 g/ltr + 2,4- D 10 g/ltr)

Plate 5. Death of phloem and xylem cells in Plate 6. Root system study with different Mera– 71@ 40gm /ltr and 2,4- D chemicals 10 g/ltr

38